welcome to the campus of st. mary's college in maraga for the 2010 united states senate debate between the democratic incumbent, senator barbara boxer and her republican challenger, carly fiorina. i'm the political editor for kteu television. before welcoming the candidates, let me introduce you to the journalists asking tonight's questions. the senior reporter. scott schaffer, the host of "the california report," and the senior political reporter for la opinion. we'll be taking some questions

from viewers. welcome barbara boxer and carly fiorin fiorina. >> thank you both for joining us. democrat barbara boxer is a three-term united states senator. she's served in the senate since 1993. before that, she served in the house of representatives for ten years. republican carly fiorina is running for elected office for the first time. her background is in business. she served for six years as the chief officer for hewlett packard. your campaigns participate in a coin toss to see who could answer first in the opening remarks. senator, you won, but chose to

have carly fiorina to go first. you have 90 seconds. >> please call me carly. it's great to be with all of you here. thank you for letting us in to your homes this evening. you know, i have lived the american dream. i started out like most americans do in a small business. i typed, i filed, i annalsed the phones for a little nine-person company about an hour from where we are tonight. my husband started out driving a tow truck for the city of pittsburgh, pennsylvania. and i'm rung for public office now because i like so many of you think our country is heading in the wrong direction. i think the american dream is too hard for too many people. frank and i are worried that our two grand daughters won't have the same opportunities that we've had. i've never run for public office before, but i think our founding fathers intended ours to be a citizen government. that's by and for the people means. i have created jobs, cut

spending, and solved problems. we need common sense and practical problem solving ability in washington, d.c. barbara boxer has been in washington, d.c. for 28 long years. though she may say many things tonight, her track record, her long track record in washington, d.c. is consistent and clear and the results of her policies are devastating for this state. in the last 20 months along, our unemployment rate has grown. our debt has grown from $10.8 trillion to $13 trillion on its way to $20 trillion. barbara boxer may say she's fighting for californians, but the truth is, she's fighting hardest for another six years in washington, d.c. >> thank you, senator boxer. you get 90 seconds now. >> thank you very much, everybody. wonderful to be here. thanks to the sponsors, thanks to the good people of california who have put their faith in me. and because of that, i've been able to enact 1,000 provisions for our children, the first ever after school program.

for our veteran, the first ever comprehensive casualty care center in california for our wounded warriors. we've doubled the transportation funding. that means thousands of jobs and jobs are my focus. i'm working to make a california a hub for green technology. i'm working to stop tax breaks to companies who shift overseas, jobs overseas. when i talk about shipping jobs overseas, i'm reminded of my opponent. when she was ceo of hewlett packard, before she was terminated, actually, she shifted 30,000 jobs overseas. think of it? that's the size of foster city. through all that pain, what did she do to show any sacrifice? she took $100 million. that reminds me of wall street.

that's what up happened on wall street. bonuses at the top paying for everybody else. i want to see the words "made in america" again and i ask for your vote. thank you. >> now to the questions. a few guidelines, up to 9 seconds to answer the question. the other candidate will have up to 60 seconds for rebuttal. we have lots of questions tonight. i'm sure our audience at home would appreciate brief concise answers. if it's possible to answer a question under 90 seconds, i'm sure no one would complain. so, karla, you have the first answer. >> ms. fiorina, let's get to the economy. tax cuts for healthiest americans because they pay for themselves by paying jobs. when the teacher's jobs bill that would bring 16,000 jobs to california, the other small business jobs, which is supported by the u.s. chamber of commerce. how do you justify immediate

help for the wealthiest americans, but not for average californians who might be out of a job and listening to this debate tonight? >> i think first we need to start by describing what the 2001-2003 tax cuts were. tax cuts that will expire in january. the vast majority of that tax relief went to middle class americans. if those tax cuts are not extended, the average california family will pay up to $1600 more in taxes. it's also true that small business owners in particular are struggling under the weight of businesses for senator boxer has voted for tax relief each and every time. the death tax will skyrocket to 55% on january 1. we have 88,000 farms in this great state, mostly family owned to create jobs. we need to make sure that in particular, our small businesses, our family-owned

businesses, innovators and entrepreneurs are freed from strangling regulation and free from taxation. i think in the middle of a terrible recession, this is the worst economic crisis since 1979 and since 1929 in this state. just think about it. we have 12 metropolitan areas with unemployment above 15%. we have 23 counties with unemployment above 15%. meanwhile, in the last 20 month, the federal government spending has increased 10% each year and federal government employees have increased 14.5%. over the last six years. >> senator boxer, 60 seconds to reply. >> would like to go back to the question because it's important. we had 16,500 plus to get pink

slips in the mail. they were not going to be in the classroom when our children were there. what's more important than our children? i'm a product of public schools. 95 octob 95% of our people go to public schools. the kids go to public schools. this is a bill that was paid for. you know that my opponent called that bill where we saved the teacher jobs, she called the bill a disgrace. she called it disgraceful. we paid for it because of tax breaks by shipping jobs to companies overseas. every time you get past the surface, you see the opponent fighting for the billionaire, the millionaires, for the companies who ship jobs overseas. she opposes a small business legislation that most everybody supports that we give tax breaks to small business. >> scott, you have the next question for senator boxer.

>> senator boxer, last night, president obama officially ended the u.s. combat mission in iraq. people died, some came home with physical and mental disabilities. do you think the war was worth the cost? at what point do you say enough is enough? time to bring the troops home. >> glad the combat troops are coming back from iraq. i was one of the 23 that did not vote for the war. i did in fact support the troops. 85% of all of the spending bills that we had, even though i had disagreements on that war. and when i opposed any of those bills, it was because it wasn't good enough for our wounded warriors. so i'm so glad they're coming back. and i think the reason that we are at this point is because america finally said through our president, this is a date, we're

coming home. say to the iraqis, you have to step up to the plate and defend your own nation. i believe in nation helping, not nation building. and i feel the same way in afghanistan. i did vote to go after osama bin laden. george w. bush went away from it and went to iraq. i do support the president trying to see that we can train the afghan people to again defend yourselves. but i do want to see more timelines drawn there. i think it's important to send that signal -- this is a time frame. i'm on a feingold bill which you can read which essentially says, give us a timetable, give us the conditions in which we can bring our troops home. and i think we're on that track. i support beginning the withdraw by 2011. but i'm happy that our troops are coming home. they're the bravest, the

greatest, now we have to take care of them. they have terrible injuries and wounds. i just went to that comprehensive casualty care center and they're doing miraculous. >> senator, sorry, times up. apparently the lights aren't working. a real quick follow before we go to the answer. >> sure. >> if the president doesn't come up with a written time line as you suggested he do, will you call him out on that as you did president bush? you were critical of president bush for not having firm time line, you haven't been as critical of president obama. >> i stated it publicly and i'm on the feingold bill that would require the president to do that. because i don't think it's a matter of partisanship. it's a matter of our troops. it's a matter -- we need to rebuild america. >> okay. >> tough time. we can help afghanistan and help iraq, but we need to rebuild our country. >> ms. fiorina, your reply. >> senator boxer's last two answers are a perfect illustration of her rhetoric versus the reality. so let's look at the reality of

her record supporting our men and women in uniform. she voted against body armor. she voted against support for brain trauma and posttraumatic stress syndrome. she voted against extended family leave for families. the vote she cast so upset then senator joe biden he then said this is a political vote, nothing is worth, in that case, his son's life. regards to the two bills she talked about earlier, the truth is, the small business bill she supported could have been a great bill, but they threw in there t.a.r.p. jr., the opportunity for the government to take equity positions in equity banks. it didn't work so well. it didn't get credit flowing again. we're playing political football with taxpayer money. in fact, sacramento and washington, d.c. had been fighting over who gets to spend that money in the vast majority

of teachers won't be employed until 2012 and some of it may go to reducing the deficit. >> time is up. pilar, you have the next question for carly fiorina. >> thank you very much. 65,000 young men and women graduate from high school in the u.s. and have a hard time furthering their education or finding the job because they were brought here illegally. would you have continued to live in the limbo? would you consider supporting legislation in helping them in the long path of the citizenship if they study to meet certain goals? >> i believe that the 21st century is the century of brain power and innovation. we need to cultivate all of the brain power we can. by making sure that people are well educated here. yes. i would support the dream act. i do not believe that we can

punish children who through no fault of their own are here trying to live the american dream. now, let me very quickly say, i do not support amnesty for those who have come here illegally. i believe the federal government must support the border and it has not done his job. i believe the federal government has to come up with a guest worker program that works. senator boxer has vilified the people of arizona even though the federal government isn't doing its job. in a critical moment in 2007 when a guest worker program was on the table, she was the deciding vote that killed the guest worker program. and in essence destroyed a compromise on comprehensive immigration reform. when she voted for the dorgan amendment that killed the guest worker program, her comment was immigrants represent a cheap source of labor that threatens the american worker. you look at senator boxer's long track record of 28 years in

washington, d.c., you would see this -- she's for more taxes. she's for more spending. she's for more regulation. and she's also for big government and elite extreme environmental groups. >> i have to say, i'm proud of my record for veterans. that's why i'm the bipartisan -- the co-chair of the caucus. i have a record which won me an award for doctors who were trying to find better treatments for burn victims. i got the first funding for traumatic brain injury. and my husband serve in the military. so i love the military in a very personal way. now what i want to say about immigration is this. my opponent called comprehensive immigration reform a distraction. imagine a distraction? we have 11 million people here

living on the shadows. here's where we stand, under the law, since my opponent feels we shouldn't deal with this issue, they would have to be deported. we just had a recent study from ufc and several other very important institutions that said the way to get this economy going again is to go with comprehensive immigration reform. now the dream -- >> senator, i'm sorry, your time is up. >> the dream act is part of that. >> over the last few weeks, viewers and readers have been sending in questions they would like to hear the candidates answer. right now, we're going to shift gears a little bit and hear a couple of those questions. the first question comes from tim tam. he's a democrat and he lives in oakland. >> senator boxer, you've been staying in the office three terms. why don't you let other people try? >> that question -- you've been in office three terms and why

not give other folks a chance? >> first time we tried it. >> my answer is every election is a chance. that's the -- that's what america is about. you know, i have to say this. our founders decided to put the power in the hands of the people. and the people have to vote. i've been so fortunate. the first generation american on my mother's side. my mother never graduated high school. she had to work to support the familiar he. i'm in the united states senate? i fight for people. every time i run, i have a tough time on my hands and people have me decide if they want to have me back or if they want to elect someone who made her name as the ceo of hewlett packard laying thousands and thousands of workers off, shipping their jobs oversea, making no sacrifice while she was doing it, taking

$100 million. i don't think we need those wall street values right now. every race i run in, there's a clear choice. there's a clear choice here on jobs. there's a clear choice on the issue of offshore oil drilling. there's a clear choice on the issue of a woman's right to choose and many other areas i think we'll get to tonight. >> ms. fiorina, your reply? >> i think it's a good question. senator boxer is right. ultimately, the choice is up to voters. but i think one of the things that voters believe is that results count. in her 18 years in the senate, senator boxer has four bills with her name on them, four pieces of legislation that is far below the record or even the average. and those four bills include naming a river in virginia, naming a courthouse, renaming a post office, and bringing some federal dollars back to the bay area after the earthquake.

it is all well and good for senator boxer to continue to mischaracterize my record. i would remind her that it was she who voted for the wall street bailout. it was she who has taken my contributions from wall street executives. i would remind her as well that when you lead a business, whether it's a nine-person business or 150,000 people, you sometimes have to make the agonizing choice to lose some jobs to save more. and what enrages people in california is they see people making those tough choices absolutely every day. >> our time is up. i'm sorry. >> it's several federal employees growing at 14.5%. >> time is up. the next viewer question is for ms. fiorina. it comes from a republican, tom watson. mr. watson is a retired employee from hewlett packard. he has a question regarding the

outsourcing of jobs alt s at h. let's listen. >> carly, while you were at hp, you sent thousands of jobs offshore. you coined the phrase, "right shoring." also in a keynote speech in 2004, you said -- there's no job that's america's god-given right anymore. do you still feel that way? what are you plans to create jobs? >> any job can go anywhere. what worries me deeply is the jobs we have now could not come back. we have to fight for every job. the truth is that california has higher than average unemployment rate because we're destroying jobs. others are fighting for jobs. texas is fighting harder for jobs, north carolina, mexico, brazil, guatemala, china, india, russia, poland. i know precisely why those jobs go. i'll tell you why. china, for example, like texas,

like brazil, gives companies huge tax credits. they help them cut through regulation. they reward r&d, they provide access to credit. that's what we need to do. i proposed a two-year payroll tax holiday for every small business that will hire an unemployed worker. i proposed five-year tax holidays for new businesses that we'll locate here, to use the power of the federal government to create special economic zones as the chinese have to help companies cut through regulation. instead of bailing out general motors, let us give them the incentives to bring their plants back home and to hire american workers and let us decide that in this country, we're going to be, once again, number one in innovation. we have fallen to 17th in the world. we have to fight for innovation. and that means that we have to be number one in the world in terms of the incentives that we provide for r&d. we can grow our economy again. but it means that we have to fight for private sector jobs.

and frankly, i don't think there's enough people in washington who even understand why private sector jobs are created. >> let's ask a real quick follow-up before we connect to the senator. using the past tense that schoolteachers should have their pay connected to the performance. school scores down, they should face the consequences. you were at hp and the board of directors forced you resign because of the stock market dropping with regard to hp, you got a severance of $21 million, people might say, shouldn't ceos have the same standards as schoolteachers on that regard? >> absolutely they should. and in fact during my time at hewlett packard, i ripped up my employment contract and put my pay up for shareholder vote. every dollar i earned was voted by share holders and every dollar was tied specifically to performance. just to review, in the six years that i managed hewlett packard during the worst technology recession in 25 years, we doubled the size of the company

to 88 billion, we tripled the rate of innovation to 11 patents a day. we quinn up theled the cash flow, we improved the productivity of every product line and the stock outperformed the pure index by 25%. >> okay. thank you. senator? >> we're entitled to our opinion but not entitled to our facts. there was a $21 million severance check. my understanding it was taken after my opponent was fired. the stock went down more than 50%. she's calling for accountability with teachers, there ought to be accountability with ceos. i think it's simple. i think the viewer that asked the question hit on something very important. i think it's this, if ever we needed a united states senator from california to fight for american jobs, it's now. my opponent -- we know that she shipped jobs overseas. thousands of them.

we know she fired workers, tens of thousands of them. but we also know she has opposed every jobs bill that we voted on. the hire act, which gave a tax holiday to business people if they hired an unemployed person, she opposed that. she opposed the teachers bringing back 16,500 teachers in to the classroom. she opposed that. she opposed wall street reform. >> sorry, senator, time is up. you get the next question. it's from carla -- >> senator, many of the readers at sfgate.com asked us to ask you this. it regards the often-repeated clips on the internet in which you tied brigadier general michael walsh, he appeared before you in committee. he addressed you as ma'am and you told him you should be called senator because you worked hard to get that title. a lot of the readers said they thought it showed you gotten out of touch in three terms in

washington, high handed. why did you make that comment to the brigadier general and is their criticism fair? >> people have the right to criticize me for anything that we do. i don't take issue with that. for that particular moment, we were having a lot of back and forth. this is a formal hearing. i made the call that i should call the general, general, and it would be better if he called me by my formal title. instead of sir and ma'am, general, senator. that's what it was. afterwards, i called the general and i said, do i owe you an apology? did i upset you? he said, no, not at all. we're working well together. he's working on the army corps of engineer projects right now as we speak after the bp spill. he's helping us with our flood control in sacramento. so that's what that was about. >> ms. fiorina? >> well, i'm certainly pleased to hear that senator boxer called the general and asked if

she needed to apologize. and i take him at his word. if he indicates that he wasn't offended. i agree with senator boxer that we're not entitled to our own facts. i think it's actually a shame that barbara boxer would use hewlett packard, a treasure of california, one of the great companies in the world whose employees work very hard and whose shareholders had benefitted greatly from both my time at ceo and all of the hard work of the employees that i had the privilege to lead, it's a shame she would use that company as a political football. i understand she'll mischaracterize my severance package. as for her reference to wall street reform, let's talk about it for a second. the wall street crisis hits, and it turns out 20 agencies were asleep at the switch. what the bill did in essence

said never mind -- the 20 agencies, never mind fannie and freddie who were part of the problem, we're going to create a brand new agency with a bunch of new bureaucrats. >> time is up. i'm sorry, time is up. i noticed that both of you are drifting off of the questions to answer something you'd like to answer. i understand it's frustrating for you at times but if you could answer the questions directly, that would be great. scott, you have a question for ms. fiorina? >> you supported proposition eight and said that marriage should be only between one man and one woman. domestic partnerships and civil unions are not recognized by the federal government. and the defensive marriage act means the committed gay and lesbian couples are denied more than 1,000 federal rights that heterosexual couples get like benefits from social security when a spouse dies. so my question is this -- should federal law be changed to allow for equal legal status for same sex couples? and if not, why not?

>> i do believe that marriage is between a man and a woman. i've been consistent and clear -- that i support civil unions for gay and lesbian couples. broad bipartisan support and the condition i espoused is consistent as our president and the vast majority of senators in the u.s. senate. i think what we now are seeing on proposition eight is that the voters are quite clear about their views on this. this is now going through a legal process. whatever your views about gay marriage, i think many of us would conclude when voters have such a clear decision, that decision to be overturned by a single judge seems perhaps not appropriate. and so this is now the beginning of what will be a long legal process. i support very much the repeal of don't ask don't tell. i know that the military is getting readdy to release its

report on the best way to execute that decision. >> senator boxer, your reply? >> yes. >> we do have courts that check the legislature, the legislature checked. a lot of the laws that we pass may well go through that task. now if you read ron george's decision on this, by the way, a republican who's approved for the state of the california bench, he's clear. he said the only way to get equal rights to gays and lesbians is to say there should be marriage equality. it's a very straightforward decision. because as you said, the only way to get the rights that married couples have is to go for marriage equality. i'm glad to say i believe people are coming around to see it. and i would also just say that

in terms of what we heard about the fact that i shouldn't talk about my opponent stays at hp, she's running on her record as the former ceo of hewlett packard. so what she did there counts and i'm going to keep on telling the truth about it. >> i'm going to keep watching the clock. sorry. by la pilar, you have the next question. >> it's for the senator. in news stories and the polls, it appears that analysts look at the california senator that can work at the other side of the aisle and you as the more partisan senator. can you think of a time that you disagreed strongly with president obama on something and you did something about it? >> i can. first let me say i'm a co-sponsor on 500 republican bills. and i could give you a list of things -- i worked with my colleagues, the after school bill was done with the republican colleague and a lot of the work i've done for

veterans has been done with republican colleagues. with president obama, at this particular point, we need an exit strategy from afghanistan. i do believe it's very important. it's one clear example. also, if i were him, i would appoint elizabeth warren right now to head the new consumer agency that's going to be looking over credit cards. because as you know people don't read all of that fine print. we need to have somebody looking over the shoulder of the banks. my opponent set up the wall street reform. it sets up the consumer agency for the first time. you'll have somebody looking out for you. make sure you don't get -- i don't want to use that word -- make sure you get treated fairly on your mortgage and you get treated on your credit cards. >> thank you, ms. fiorina, your reply? >> i think the senator is right.

we both need to run on our records. i'm proud to run on my record and hewlett packard. and long on talk and very short on achievement. and the reason it's short on achievement is because she's one of the most bitterly partisan members of the u.s. senate. 28 years in washington, d.c., she has four relatively insignificant bills with her name on them. the truth is the piece of legislation as the chairman and environment of public works, she could not shepherd that to a conclusion. that bill was taken away for her and given to john kerry because it was believed that he had a better chance of getting bipartisan support. i don't happen to support her cap in trade bill. it's been called the most expensive piece of regulation and legislation in u.s. history. but nevertheless, it's telling

that her bitter partnership prevented her from getting the top priority accomplish in the senate. >> thank you. carla. you have the next question? >> ms. fiorina, you're pro life. you have voted to overturn row v. wade given the opportunity. you believe that life begins at conception. does that mean you would seek to deny funding to institutions which are engaged in embryonic stem cell research? >> i am pro life. i'm pro life because of my personal experiences. my husband's mother was told to abort him, she did not. her health was threatened as a result. she lived to 98. my husband, obviously, is the rock of my life. i recognize that not everyone agrees with me on this. and i recognize as well that the most important issue right now in this election is the creation of jobs and getting our government under control. but with regard to your very specific question.

i am comfortable with federal funding for adult stem cell research which shows more promise according to more scientists. and i've been clear in saying if embryos were going to be destroy in any event, that i have no trouble with research. it's when embryos are produced for the purposes of destruction, for the purposes of stem cell research, that i have a great deal of difficulty and i think that the judge is ruling that recently came out basically suggested that we don't have clear enough guidelines about whether embryos are being produced for destruction. senator boxer voted against a ban on human cloning so we know where she stands on this issue. her positions on these issues are extreme. she has said that she doesn't think a baby has rights until it leaves the hospital. so i think the judge said we need to have clarity on these rules to make sure the embryos

are not destroyed. >> before the senator gets a chance to reply real quick. i want to make sure the premise of your question is correct. we do suggest that we overturn row v. wade. if there were an opportunity. not an issue. i'm a strong believer in state's rights. i believe voters have to make difficult decisions. i am prepared to trust the judgment on offshore drilling. >> i asked about abortion. >> i've asked about the right on the right to choose. >> thank you, senator, your rebuttal. >> i respect everybody's personal view and everybody has a story as to why they come to a certain position. i respect it. that's why i'm pro choice. i let people decide. what the people of california have to unis that if my opponents' views prevailed, women doctors would be criminal. they would go to jail. women would die like they did

before row v. wade. so this is about my personal view. the women and families of our state and of our country. now my opponent says that i passed four bills. she keeps saying that. she said three, now she's made it four. now $1,000 have been elected. we have a bunch on barbara boxer.com for you to see. as a matter of fact, i'm proud of those provisions. under the way she is counting bills, mccain-feingold, neither of them would have gotten credit. i don't know whether my opponent is trying to confuse people. the way the bill becomes a law has many, many tracks. it could be straightforward with the bill on the record. >> i hate to be a broken record. time is up. >> sorry, senator. >> okay. >> scott, you have the next

question. >> mr. obama inherited the terrible economy. and democrats blamed the troubles on the predecessor. and democrats have controlled congress for four years. president obama has neared the halfway point for the first term. and the unemployment rate is stuck at 9% and there are signs that the economy is slowing down again. the at what point should democrats stop blaming push president bush and start taking full responsibility for the economy? >> we're taking responsibility and we're taking action. i talked about a number of those things that we have done -- making sure teachers stay in the classroom. making sure that small businesses get access to credit. all we need is one republican to get that bill done when we get back. i think we're going to get that one republican. and we can create 500 to 1,000 to a million new jobs. but, you know, i feel that you have to look at history. otherwise you'll repeat it.

i served with eight years with bill clinton and every budget and every economic policy. we created 23 million new jobs next. not only do we balance the budget, but we created a surplus. i served eight years with george w. bush, i do not support his priorities and his budgets. we wound up with a $1.3 trillion deficit after those eight years and the worst job creation record since herbert hoover, 1 million new jobs compared to 23 million. so, yes, we didn't get here overnight. and we're not going to solve it overnight. but job by job by job, we are going to solve it. there's a man out here in the audience, i don't want to embarrass him, jay smith, if he's out there, who is working because of the economic recovery act on doyle drive -- 2,000 workers working because of the economic recovery act.

so, yes, we're taking responsibility. but people in this country and my state have to get the whole pictu picture. >> thank you. >> ms. fiorina, your reply? oh. >> recovery summer has become the summer of despair in california. in the last 20 months, our unemployment rate has gone from 10.2% to 12.3%. i have talked with small business owners up and down this state and they are being strangled by too much cost, too much uncertainty, too much regulation. barbara boxer is promising numbers and jobs now. when she voted for that bill, she said it would bring help and hope and 400,000 jobs to this state and we have 2.3 million people out of work. as for fiscal discipline, why sit that she's voted six times against a balanced budget amendment including in president

clinton's time. why is it she voted six times to increase the debt cerealing in the last 20 months alone, and why is it she's voted four times against a relatively modest bipartisaned proposal to slow the rate of increase in federal government spending to 1.5%. her record is crystal clear. >> pilar. next question? >> you put out an ad sometime ago that seemed to equate global warming with the weather. you said that the anti-global warming measure in california is a job killer and should be suspended. there's a proposition right now in california, prop 23, that will do just that. i don't -- i'm not sure you have taken a position in that. so i have a double question. what is your position on prop 23 and do you think global warming is real or is it a problem with the weather? >> the ad you're referring to was really talking about

national security and what are our priorities for national security. and i think that's a very legitimate question to be asked of senator boxer who has been campaigning since 1992 on cutting our military budget in half, who believe that terrorists should be given the constitutional rights of u.s. citizens. that is what that ad was about. we should always have the courage to examine the science. but all scientists agree on this -- the only way to impact global warming is to act globall globally. what we need in this country, a priority of mind if i'm lucky enough to gain the confidence of california, that means that ab-32 should be superseded. it should be. it would have been by barbara boxer's cap in trade bill but her bill is completely the wrong track. it would have cost trillions of

dollars and lost economic output, millions of jobs. it doesn't do enough to fund energy r&d. what we need to do in a comprehensive energy policy is fund energy r&d. we need to give more funding to florence liver mohr, for example, we need to give more to berkeley. we need to take advantage of every responsible way of every source we have, nuclear, wind, solar. we have to acknowledge that we cannot put bills in place that punish excessively energy intensive industries like farming, like manufacturing, and like -- >> time is up. you didn't answer part of pilar's question which is do you support prop 23 which would suspend ab-32? >> my focus is on a national energy policy? >> yes or no? >> that is why -- >> just answer, do you support it? >> have not taken a position on it yet. >> we are -- there's no question in my mind and no question of

the people who studied ab-32, at the very least, in the short term, a job killer. why would we go forward? we need a national energy policy. >> senator boxer. >> well, if you can't take a stand on prop 23, i don't know what you will take a stand on. this is a crucial bill. let me tell you the reason why. if we overturn california's clean energy policies, that's going to mean that china takes the lead away from us with so r solar. that germany takes the lead away from us with wind. but i guess my opponent is kind of used to creating jobs in china and other places. i want those jobs created here in america. i want to see the words "made in america" again. and this is the way we're going to do it. the whole world is going green. i know my opponent has gotten huge support from the coal companies from big oil. they're hoping that i don't make it. i'm asking the people of this

state who care about these issues to really take note. because if my opponent gets there, california's done for in terms of its lead on clean energy, no bill i ever wrote ever superseded california's clean energy laws. because i honor those laws and they're creating jobs now. >> thank you, time is up. okay, i think now would be a good time to go back to a couple of questions from viewers and this next question is for senator boxer. it comes from alona armstrong, an undergraduate student here in st. mary's college. not a democrat, not a republican. she refers to herself as an independent. >> okay. growing up in a small farm in the central valley, one thing that's shocked me is the fact that the largest and wealthiest agribusiness interests collect 74% of the farm subsidies while small family familirms are unabo compete. what have you done in the u.s.

senate to rectify this inequity. >> senator. >> for the first time finally in the last farm bill, we working together with finestein, we were able to get the first recognition that our specialty crops need to take a place in the farm bill. we grow 300 different products in our state. and for the first time, we were able to do that. i think there are big subsidies going to ethanol, going to corn that don't make any sense. and i fought hard to change those. but i really think that there is a change. we have, in fact, limited some of the subsidies. we have said if you're a great big giant farm and you're not a family farm, you're not going to get these subsidies. and i will tell you something else, senator feinstein and i are doing -- we want to make sure that the estate tax does not kick in for a family farm where the family continues the farming.

if you're a huge farm, that's a different story. you're in agribusiness, that's different. if you are a family farm, you should haven't to pay that estate tax. we want to encourage those farms to continue. >> ms. fiorina, your reply? oh. >> you know, it's a lot of great words. but in the real world, actions speak louder than words. senator boxer has voted against death tax relief 18 times. her track record is very clear. and while our 88,000 farms here in california, most of them family owned struggled with water, with a lack of water, senator boxer refused to lift a finger. as chairwoman of environment and public works, she could have put an amendment forward to waive a biological assessment to turn water back on in our central valley, she refused. when a colleague put it forward, she voted against it. when senator feinstein stepped forward to put an amendment on the table to wave that assessment to provide needed

water, she pressured her colleague to drop that amendment. here is the truth. central valley struggles with record unemployment. they need water. and senator barbara boxer, the chairwoman of environment and public works has stood in her way and she has over and over again refused to give them death tax relief. >> time is up. the next question, and this is for you, carly fiorina, this comes from the democrat in oakland. and i think it has to do with guns and airplanes, something you talked about in a primary debate? >> i read earlier that you're in favor of the people on the no-fly list to have guns. i'm a resident of oakland. that doesn't sit well with me at all. please explain your stand. >> i know it sounds so strange, but let's talk about the no-fly list for a moment. my sister-in-law is on the

no-fly list. my friend of 20 years' husband was on the no-fly list. edward kennedy is on the no-fly list. the no-fly list isn't particularly well managed. people who shouldn't be on it are on it. people who shouldn't be on it like the christmas day bomber who almost made it out of the country, wasn't on it. here's the truth -- we should not be taking constitutional rights away from citizens. and at the same time, giving rights to terrorists. that's what barbara boxer is doing. she agrees that the vast majority of crimes committed with the gun are committed by criminals who have broken laws to acquire their gun. so let us prosecute those laws, let us prosecute those criminals. let us not deny law-abiding citizens their constitutional rights. and instead give constitutional rights to terrorists as senator boxer would like to do.

>> it's hard to know where to start. if you're on the no-fly list, only a few thoutz. if your sister wanted a gun, they would look and see she could have that, if, in fact, she live in california, she'd have to go to the local sheriff. but it seems to me as someone who authored a bill with a republican colleagues that became the law that says pilots who are trained have a right to carry a gun in the cockpit. because there's so much concern by the pilots that they be able to take action. that's where you want to have a gun on the airplane. not giving it to people who are on the terrorist watchlist. when i saw my opponent say that, i was watching it, it was in a debate. tom campbell who she was running against the primary, she doesn't get very excited. and for the first time in my life, i saw him get excited when she said this.

and he said, oh, my goodness -- and that was for him really getting excited. so, i think that is so out of step. it's so out of touch. and having that kind of view in the united states senate is just going to harm us. it's going to make us less safe. that's what it's going to do. >> unbelievably, we're out of time for full questions for full answers. let me ask something real quick if you can answer quickly and senator you can get a quick rebuttal. if i understand correctly, you're for allowing the assault weapons ban to disappear, is that correct? >> it's crystal clear, we have loads of laws. and most of the time criminals are breaking those laws. and we are curtailing citizens' lawful right to carry guns. the assault weapons ban is extremely arbitrary in what qualifies as an assault weapon. let me just say, senator boxer, i don't know, perhaps she's truly con fused or perhaps she's

just trying to create rhetoric. but the no-fly list and the terrorist watchlist are quite different things. >> really tight. i want to make sure the senator has time for a quick response. >> yes, the assault weapons ban has been in place in california since the 1980s. so, to go back to that dangerous yesterday, makes no sense at all. it has bipartisan support. senator finestein has worked so hard to get that assault weapons ban in place. we want to have our streets safe. >> okay. we're now going to shift to closing statements. >> thank you so much for the debate, senator boxer. i have travelled up and down this wonderful state. i have been struck by her beauty and by the spirit of

californians. i'm also struck by the frustration, the anger, and the fear. i met an immigrant who built the small business from the ground up only to see it ruined with too much taxation and too much regulation. and i remember him looking at me and saying this is not the country i came to. my own government is destroying my livelihood. i remember speaking to the city councilman who talked about hi struggles to keep his community together while they struggled with almost 40% unemployment. and i remember as well the woman who looked me in the eye and grasped my hand and said, i have never voted before. but i am voting for you. i am praying for my children's future. promise me this -- when you get to washington, you will not forget us. we can turn our nation around.

we can get it back on the right track. we can get our state on the right track. we can grow our economy. we can control government spending. but to do all of these things, we must start by changing the people we send to washington. i asked for your support. i ask for your vote. and i pledge to you this -- i will go to the u.s. senate and i will fight for the millions of californians who love their country, who go about their business, who pay their dues, who serve their communities. you don't ask for frills or favors. you give a lot, you expect little. you are asking for one simple thing now -- that we take our government back, make it listen, and make it work. >> senator, you now get two minutes for a closing statement? >> thank you so much, everyone, for this opportunity. i think you've seen here, this is a very clear choice. and i'm going to run through some of those choices.

this election is between someone who's fighting for jobs day in and day out. jobs right here in america versus someone who when she had the chance lay it off 30,000 workers and shifted jobs to china. this election is about someone who's working hard so that we can see the words "made in america" again. versus someone who is proud of their time at hp when she stamped "made in china," "made in india" on her products. this is a choice, a clear choice between someone fighting for small business and middle class against someone who is fighting for the wealthy few, the billionaires and the ceos. this is a big difference. one of us is fighting to make

california a hub in the clean energy economy and the millions or jobs that go with it. the other is being supported by big oil and big coal? this is a choice between two people who differ on a woman's right to choose. i worked my whole life to protect a woman's right to privacy and to health. my opponent would turn that woman into a criminal. the 400,000 jobs that rely on the coast. the fishermen, the tourist industry, the recreation industry. my opponent does not support the finestein legislation to permanently connect that coast. this is a choice -- a choice between a candidate that fought really hard for wall street reform to end that mess over there, and someone who opposes that reform. i think frankly, acting just like a wall street ceo -- what do i mean by that?

destroying jobs for americans and taking it for yourself. >> senator, time is up. >> i hope you don't go back to that. >> so thank you, both. thank you, senator boxer. thank you, carly fiorina. and we all apologize for not getting to more questions. we certainly would have liked to. but hopefully, what we've talked about tonight will help people here and help viewers and listeners at home make informed decisions on what they should do on election day, november 2. so thanks so our panel of journalists. i would like to thank everyone here at st. mary's college for hosting this debate. for kqed news, thanks for hosting this debate. for kqed news, thanks for joining us, and good night. -- captions by vitac -- www.vitac.com